Replies

Evidence also points to zero peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism and its descendant, intelligent design.

Ahh yes, the same peer review canard that keeps circulating ( see the other canard that keeps circulating -- RE: Michael Behe believes in superstitious astrology ).

Notice how William Dembski observes how the peer review system works :

"Robert Pennock’s Nature article with Richard Lenski on the evolutionary program AVIDA does not mention Michael Behe, irreducible complexity, or intelligent design (for a critique of that article, go here). And yet, when Pennock criticizes ID, the first thing he does is point to that article as a refutation of ID and, in particular, Michael Behe’s claim that irreducible complexity poses an obstacle to conventional evolutionary mechanisms. So, peer-reviewed articles that do not cite ID or its literature nonetheless constitute refutations of it, and yet peer-reviewed articles by ID proponents that do not explicitly mention ID (to avoid censorship) may not count as confirmations of it. The double-standard here is palpable."

Look... no one can claim with a straight face that peer review is dependent on the peers themselves and what they allow in…and we have scores of examples of ID proponents being refused even a hearing… with many of them have actually being attacked with campaigns to get them removed from their positions. If Darwinists are out on a witch hunt to destroy anyone who dissents, then of course IDers have little chance of getting peer reviewed papers published or getting their ideas out on journals.

These arent conspiracy theories- they're clear fact. ask Richard Sternberg ( Evolutionary Biologist and Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington ) and look at his plight here :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html

Ask Guillermo Gonzalez, who is being attacked for his views and many are trying to stifle his right to speak on the issue…ask those who participated in the Smithsonian viewing of The Priveleged Planet when the Smithsonian suddenly attacked them and demanded they pay for the showing and cancelled other things related to it.

BTW, with respect to Guillermo Gonzalez, the man wrote 68 peer reviewed papers, most of them cited by his peers ( 300% more than required by the university tenure guidelines). When his tenure review at Iowa State came, there was a campaign mounted by atheistic professor Hector Avalos to derail his tenure. It succeeded.

Just goes to show how "easy" /sarc it is to get your views published if you even exhibit a smattering of doubt about Darwinism.

It could be true that mutation and natural selection are not the only two mechanisms. Since you believe that they aren't, write a paper arguing that a higher being is involved and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If you could do it, you would benefit creationism immensely.

Please do not confuse creationism with Intelligent Design. Just because they have something in common does not mean that their views are the same. I advise you to read up on the wide swath ID literature so that you do not confuse the two.

Please do not confuse creationism with Intelligent Design. Just because they have something in common does not mean that their views are the same. I advise you to read up on the wide swath ID literature so that you do not confuse the two.

I take it you mean the revisionist literature that seeks to distance ID from its father, Creation Science, and its grandfather, Creationism.

Just as the literature tries to make it sound scientific and on the level, hoping people forget about the Wedge Document that showed the theological, and not scientific, basis of ID.

Just as the creation textbook Of Pandas and People (initial title: Creation Biology) was edited in the late 80s after the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, replacing the word "Creation" with "Intelligent Design" and "Creator" with "Intelligent Designer."

There are too many examples of blatant lies, perjury, conspiracy and deception in the ID movement to believe it when they try to say they're being scientific or don't already have the Christian God in mind as the "Designer."

I just can’t seem to quit. One more point.

This guy were debating with mindlessly regurgitates the claim that zero peer-reviewed papers have been written that “support” ID. Who else uses that very tactic?

That’s *precisely* the tactic that Al Gore used in his crockumentary on global warming. Toward the end of it, he boldly asserted that zero papers had been published that argue against man-made global warming.

In both cases it’s a grotesque distortion of reality, of course.

Your reasoning is similar to that of gender and ethnic studies professors.

Dr. Shelby Steele recounts how he was approached by a gender studies professor following one of his speeches. The professor asked him why he was not a supporter of gender studies. If I recall correctly, Steele asked if the professor was studying anything that cannot already be studied in existing departments. The professor responded that what she studied could very well be studied in other departments, but “institutional bias” made it oh-so-difficult. Steele then asked why she didn’t choose to publish in an existing department just to fight the good fight. The professor scoffed and left.

Doesn’t that “institutional bias” the professor blamed mirror the “witch hunt” you speak of?

That’s the key. You think that science wrongly brands creationism as a false science, even though creationism, creation science, and intelligent design all invoke the supernatural to explain natural phenomena. So, why not fight the good fight and show that current science is wrong in its judgment? Use the weapon of the status quo, peer-reviewed journals, to create a new status quo, one that places creationism in its rightful place as a science.

Unless, of course, you’re afraid of being ridiculed for attempting to revert science back to pre-Renaissance standards.